Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Emily Fitzpatrick and David Knapp have made some interesting suggestions, which are reported in this article.

However, my comments below are limited to a few general points concerning the government’s proposals.

First, a class action may yet be launched on behalf of leaseholders who have been affected by escalating ground rents. I know already of cases where clients have issued negligence claims against their conveyancer for alleged failure to advise them of the risks associated with rents that double every ten years.

Second, the government proposal to tackle ground rent abuses are welcomed but seem limited to new leases. Thus, any such change is likely to come into effect for leases granted on or after a date to be announced.

Third, successful ground 8 possession claims against long leaseholders are rare but can never be ruled out when there is non-payment of rent, (assuming the lease is or remains an assured tenancy). In practice, this ground tends to be used by landlords under short-term assured shorthold tenancy agreements. Even for such landlords, the associated accelerated possession procedure is risky and costly because tenants often avert a possession order by paying the rent by the date of the hearing and/or counterclaiming for breach of landlord covenant.

Nevertheless, the proposal to remove ground 8 as a possible ground for possession against long leaseholders is welcomed. This is a point I have discussed with practitioners on several occasions. However, it is merely a welcome first step and I would like the government to go further on this point.

Your details

Cancel